Antiresorptive agent-related osteonecrosis of the jaw in osteoporosis patients from Asian countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bisphosphonate (BP)-associated osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) was first reported in oncology patients in 2003 and subsequently in osteoporosis patients in 2004. Since oral surgical procedures, such as tooth extraction, are also considered one of the major risk factors for ONJ, there is confusion among physicians, dentists, and patients-particularly osteoporosis patients currently taking BPs-regarding the safety of remaining on therapy surrounding these procedures. Many papers about BP-related ONJ (BRONJ) have been published to date. In addition to BRONJ, recent studies have reported an association between ONJ and the antiresorptive therapy denosumab (Dmab; a RANKL-inhibitor). BRONJ and Dmab-related ONJ are together referred to as antiresorptive agent-related ONJ (ARONJ). The pathogenesis of ARONJ still remains unknown. It is forecasted that there will be an increased incidence of patients with osteoporotic fractures and an increased number of prescriptions for antiresorptive agents in Asia in the future. However, prescriptions for antiresorptives for osteoporosis may be restricted in the Asian population as the occurrence of ARONJ may be higher as compared with those in other countries. In this review, we focused on the following topics as it pertains to the Asian osteoporotic population: the oral condition specific for osteoporosis patients; definition, staging, prevalence and incidence of ARONJ; imaging modalities for ARONJ; specific risk factors for ARONJ; prevention strategies for ARONJ, and; cooperation between physicians and dentists in the prevention of ARONJ. Ideally, the Asian Federation of Osteoporosis Societies would cooperate with one another and find more population-specific evidence for the prevention of ARONJ.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".